Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....... Last time I checked, Russia occupies 114,000 sq km of Ukraine, and Ukraine's total size is 603,000 sq km. Which means Russia controls about 23% of Ukraine.
Pretty funny. The occupied area decreases every day, Russians are fighting for their lives, it is impossible to supply them properly, there is no way to retreat, the Russian air force cannot support them, their navy is afraid to venture closer than 150 miles, but you consider this area "occupied".
Since 27,000 square kilometers is Crimea, and Crimea was already occupied, that means Russia must have captured only 87,000 square kilometers in the last 9 months. And 87,000 square kilometers is only 14% of Ukraine. So that's what they get in exchange for losing virtually their entire active army and most of the tanks they could press into service. In addition, their economy will be permanently destroyed and their reputation as a superpower completely gone.
They're geniuses, I tell you.
The 'not one inch' argument was based on a one off discussion with James Baker and Russia that was not official at all.
That’s a reinvented version of history. This is the documented account, as per declassified material.
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
So, if you want to challenge my points in the future, just understand that I don’t make it a practice of making statements of fact that cannot be corroborated with evidence.
And, if you and others actually did your own research, rather than believe the claims of biased and dishonest sources, you’d have a better grasp of the facts. You might take it a step further by actually reviewing transcripts of remarks made by Putin, who, so far as I’ve been able to decipher, is accurate and evidence based in his statements. He also presents the Russian perspective which is very much legitimate, even if it contradicts the western narrative.
There is a long history of US and it’s ally’s engaged in premeditated double crossing, which in many instances led to unnecessary lose of life in large numbers.
A perfect example of that is the double cross Bush Senior cleverly set up for Saddam Hussein and Kuwait. It was Bush who sent the message to Hussein that his dispute with Kuwait was considered by the United States as an Arab-Arab issue, for which the US had no opinion. This happened as Iraq had amassed troops on the Kuwaiti border … and was obviously considered a green light from Washington, so Saddam invaded, only to discover he’d been set up by Bush. What resulted was significant harm to Kuwaitis, and a full scale massacre of the Iraqi army, as they withdrew from Kuwait, and found themselves out in the middle of a flat desert, killed like fish in a barrel by the ten’s of thousands …. 50,000 killed, 75,000 wounded Iraqi soldiers, 3,600 Iraqi civilians. On Kuwait side, over 1,000 civilians died.
The basic position of Russia is, the west cannot be trusted. That there has been a long history of promises made and promises broken, and that Russia cannot and will not accept empty promises that NATO has no nefarious intention toward Russia. Based on history, Putin would be a total fool to believe otherwise, and he is no fool.
Hell, anyone with a lick of sense can see clearly how NATO is literally encircling Russia. And the suggestion this is a defensive measure is preposterous.
But, Putin should just trust us.
Learn a little real history, will ya?
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 10-14-2022 at 12:28 PM..
Pretty funny. The occupied area decreases every day, Russians are fighting for their lives, it is impossible to supply them properly, there is no way to retreat, the Russian air force cannot support them, their navy is afraid to venture closer than 150 miles, but you consider this area "occupied".
Since 27,000 square kilometers is Crimea, and Crimea was already occupied, that means Russia must have captured only 87,000 square kilometers in the last 9 months. And 87,000 square kilometers is only 14% of Ukraine. So that's what they get in exchange for losing virtually their entire active army and most of the tanks they could press into service. In addition, their economy will be permanently destroyed and their reputation as a superpower completely gone.
They're geniuses, I tell you.
Do us a favor, if you’re going to disappear, don’t wait for a few months when we see just how wrong you are about this.
You do not know what you are talking about. What you’re saying is simply hogwash. Russia used about 120,000-200,000 troops against 600,000+ Ukrainian troops. Nobody would expect to successfully invade a country against that level of superior force numbers. Obviously, their initial objective was not to take and occupy all of Ukraine. Nobody is that incompetent.
I’ve listened to several military experts analyzing Russia’s tactics, and every last one of them were perplexed by Russia’s measured restraint going in. One used the analogy of tip toeing in, rather than charging in full bore. And I’ve matched that up with Russia’s statements about not wanting to cause massive infrastructure damage or loss of civilian life. The story fits. I’m speculating that Russia miscalculated the levels of western military aid and equipment that Ukraine would receive, and they have since recalibrated the levels of military force will be required, and the tactics necessary to secure success.
The recent appointment of General “Armageddon” to direct Russian military operations in Ukraine suggests a completely different strategy and objective is about to be unleashed. And I don’t think Ukraine is going to do very well in the next round. As I said preciously, the most recent rocket attacks took out 80% of Ukraine’s air defenses, which is why Zalenski was pleading for a NATO strike on Russia, as desperation begins to set in.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this isn’t over by the first of the year, with Zalenski escaping to an undisclosed safe location as Russian forces reach Kiev. The only way to prevent that would be for US/NATO direct involvement, which I don’t think is going to happen.
The Russians have been up front, and willing to work with Ukraine to end the violence in the Donbas. It’s been Ukraine unwilling to end the violence that they’ve been inflicting for 8 years.
Sort of like an extortionist seeking payment for "protection." Should the West just give up, surrender?
That’s a reinvented version of history. This is the documented account, as per declassified material.
Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”
Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
Two important points:
1) Those were verbal statements. No written agreement, treaty or pact ever existed regarding NATO expansion.
2) Those "assurances" were made to Soviet leader Gorbachev. A country that no longer exists.
2) Those "assurances" were made to Soviet leader Gorbachev. A country that no longer exists.
This is a hilarious technicality. Reminds me of a con-man who sticks something into the contract to weasel their way out of it later. Not the way a "moral" power should be acting.
PS I've heard from some people it was actually a written agreement, but it's hard to track that down on the interwebs.
This is a hilarious technicality. Reminds me of a con-man who sticks something into the contract to weasel their way out of it later. Not the way a "moral" power should be acting.
PS I've heard from some people it was actually a written agreement, but it's hard to track that down on the interwebs.
Again, no such agreement was ever made. Even Gorbachev said so.
Yes they were, I linked to them somewhere earlier in the thread. Won't do it again, I'm pretty sure it was in response to you as well.
For sure, a verbal agreement was made, as corroborated by many leaders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
